TheBeardKing

Yes, fasting is just not eating.

A 12 hour fast is about my minimum, but I try to make it longer if I can. Seems to just depend on what I had for dinner the night before and bowel movements. I've tried eliminating snacking between meals, but settled on a beer and pistachio happy hour right after work.

>Blender would sometimes respond with offensive language, and at other times it would make up facts altogether.

Just filter for offensive words/subjects? Can't be difficult to overcome.

That's only the first section of the article.

Edit: Can someone paste the whole article? As a parent of 9 and 7 year old girls, I'd like to know what platforms to be weary of. There's no way we'll be letting them have public social media accounts for a very long time.

And how much longer before they use facial recognition to identify the fugitive then execute the arrest?

I love the wide angle camera on my LG G5. And it's only three years young.

Congress sets salaries and benefits for government positions, but most of those jobs are under the executive branch. So the president can't just increase the head of cybersecurity's salary to $1M, that has to be approved by Congress. The DoD and intelligence agencies get around these restrictions by contracting out the technical work, but the problem is the top decision makers still don't make nearly enough to attract real experts in the field.

In the government agency I'm employed with, the cyber security manager for our products has only a logistics management background. The information assurance personnel are contractors, but they don't have much impact on the real decision making.

Nutritionists vary on the following aspects, as the research isn't definitive, so I'm not going to give an opinion, just list the facts: the new meat alternatives have less protein, more sodium, more carbs, and more saturated fat. Take that as you will.

In context, I meant the lazy soups we make always contain meat and still taste good. I can put like 4-5 ingredients in an instant pot and be done. Are there similar low effort meatless soups, without hunting down exotic spices? I love good Thai and Indian curries and such, always open to new flavors at restaurants, but at home I'm just not willing to go through that kind of effort, as I kind of despise cooking but am too cheap to eat out often.

I hate when I go to Qdoba and the same bowl with Impossible meat is $9.99, while beef or chicken is $7.99. So now I have to pay more and eat less healthy?

We've been trying to cut our meat consumption, but the cooking complexity is exactly my issue. We're lazy but healthy eaters, meaning our regular entrees are a meat and a couple veggie sides. We also do low carb, mainly because it's just easier to limit calorie intake that way. Most of the dinner work is usually cutting and preparing vegetables. When we cut meat, it cuts the main portion of the entree, which can sometimes be filled with baked potato, corn on the cob, some quinoa thing, but it's not as satisfying and gets boring. We don't like buying processed foods, and soups without meat are nearly a no-go for me. But hey, I'm limiting consumption so I guess I'm doing my part.

I prefer to wait a few years for the documentary, to really fledge out those details.

That's why I said not required; it'd be an optional upgrade. And another comment mentioned it's already implemented on Spirit.

I fly in plenty of middle seats being a government employee. Nearly all of the window and aisle seats are booked by the time we schedule the trip, and we can't pay extra for premium economy. I'm an average size guy, 5'10, 170 lbs, and never have an issue sitting middle next to average weight people. On Southwest, I actually go for them first to get within the first couple rows and get off the plane quicker. I've never had someone fall asleep and rest their head on my shoulder as I've seen on TV. But I do have a small bout of anxiety as I'm walking down the aisle for the chance I have to sit next to an overweight person. You can't help but be touching hips the entire trip, and arm nudges quite often.

This solution poses a whole new set of issues already mentioned, but the real solution in my opinion is to relegate a few rows with only 2 seats for overweight people, priced accordingly. Public perception wouldn't allow requiring overweight people to book those seats, but I think a lot of overweight people would out of courtesy and their own comfort. They would be available to anyone who wanted the extra width as well, but you'd be less motivated to pay extra for it if you didn't need it.

We're already doing that in my neck of the woods with toll express lanes on the insterstates. The moneyed skip the traffic at the expense of widened roads which would help all. These express lanes will logically be the first to allow automation, but at least in that case the affluent will be paying to prove the technology which will eventually benefit everyone.

You should throw out [addictive behavior X] is what you really mean. I'm 35 and have multiple hobbies and kids, gaming is one that I just limit to a few hours a week. Anything prohibiting you from fulfilling your responsibilities is a problem area.

Removing subsidies will produce more accurate education demand than the current situation. We have too many college graduates who are under-employed, and that's simply because we've subsidized and cheapened the quality of college education.

Sometimes community college is worse than junk, it's downright harmful. The most-recommended method in the US to get an engineering degree is to transfer 2 years of core credits from an easy community college to a harder engineeering school. That cheapens the quality of the degree, as the resulting degree is the same. I've done it - physics at engineering school and physics at community college is night and day.

Apart from that, unless you're going to get a teaching certificate or something else in STEM, the resulting degree would not be in demand from private industry if they weren't so commonplace. Those kids would've been better off working for those 4 years or learning a trade. But instead we have people pushing to fund those 4 years completely at taxpayer expense further inflating the problem.

edit: Hell yeah wages in trades would decrease, they need to. Have you not paid a plumber or electrician lately? The guys going into plumbing right out of high school are a lot smarter than the history majors working at Starbucks.

Freakonomics did a recent podcast [1] which examined different methods of student loans and payback programs. One idea was letting businesses "invest" in students directly by paying for tuition, with the student agreeing to payback terms upfront, thereby shifting the risk from the student to investor.

[1]http://freakonomics.com/podcast/student-debt/

Yes but who in private industry is demanding these community college degrees which are now free and provided by the government? The only reason 4-year community college degrees are de facto requirements and readily accepted is because they're so commonplace and subsidized. If there were less 4-year graduates, the demand would diminish at all the smallish businesses wanting bachelors and associates in business where they provide little to no value beyond just working for those few years anyway. Community college is junk, go to trade school or into a real profession and stop inflating entry-level job requirements at tax-payer expense.

I've found it's actually better to list things for a small price than to try to give it away for free. When you list for free, tons of non-committed people contact you and it's too difficult to hold for someone who ends up falling through. And sometimes you upset the beggers who think they claimed it first. When there's at least a small transaction price, you have a much better chance of getting a serious buyer.

Only recognizing your own talents is more than random probability, and can be achieved at an early age for the truly talented. It's not hard to imagine that those who are legitimately talented be it in art, athletics, or academia, take pleasure in their activities not only for the competition, but in witnessing and experiencing the progression of their skill.

I sense a prejudice towards the bucolic.

Not necessarily. My niece is an excellent gymnast and loves it, and it's the only sport she's ever done. I imagine when you're one of the best at your activity you tend to enjoy it more.

Using emergency services for the core of your argument is a strawman, as vastly more medical services are non-emergency or life threatening.

Also, in the US, Kaiser is an innovation. Comparing a voluntary, private organization to a forced, tax-funded system is a false comparison.

No, not at all. Look at Kaiser Health System and other subscriber networks, those are clear cost innovations. Also, urgent care centers, which are vastly cheaper than ERs. And CVS, Kroger minute clinics.

edit: Also, in the future, maybe we'll have AI doctors, and we're presently seeing remote health care through apps. I'm not talking specifically medical treatment technology, but so many other methods of health care which would greatly be encumbered by heavy-handed government regulations.

The author was using it to illustrate how broken the market currently is:

>Of note, there are more than 10 Walmart stores for every Whole Foods store. The opposite is true for medical care as most physicians and hospitals strive for high standards and very few concentrate on lowering costs.

That puts things in perspective for a layperson - if 9/10 grocery stores were Whole Foods, the 1/10 Walmart would not be nearly enough to serve the poor population.

Yeah, it's really bad when insurance covers only 60% of even the insured!

The way I see it, either side's solution would be better than this mash-up of private insurance heavily encumbered by government regulations and subsidies. Single-payer would be much more efficient and cost-effective, while on the other hand, massively de-regulating the market would open it up to cost and treatment innovations.

The biggest downside to socialized care is stagnant innovation and a slow-moving bureacracy, and the major drawback to private care is unlimited catastrophic consequences for major health issues, and the fact that cost-comparison isn't possible for emergency care.

If I were decider for a day, I'd flip a coin for either option over what we have currently.

That's the real problem. Capital gains taxes are at historic lows since the Bush administration [1]. They should be bracketed like income. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_Unite...

edit: Downvotes instead of rebuttals. Nice.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. With only a passing interest in environmental policy and without doing any research, I can think of numerous environmental policies rolled back or being rolled back by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans. To even act like the two national parties are even closely aligned on environmental policy is simply sticking your head in the sand.